Camera clarification

[Locke]

I know this subject has been driven into the ground here on these forums and everyone has a very strong opinion on which camera they think is the best. I'm posting to make sure I have the facts straight on a few things and to see what your opinion is, since I will be purchasing a camera VERY soon. It will be used to make indie films; some shorts, but mainly 90 minute features.

First, just making sure I have all of this right (if not, pleeeeease correct me:

HVX-200 shoots on minidv for Standard Definition and solid state memory for HD. (does this mean I can record straight to an ipod or to my computer through a firewire cable?)
The HVX-200 also does NOT have an interchangable lens. (I've heard rumors of adaptors, but how much $ would this be?)
The HVX-200 DOES shoot in true 24P

Now on to the other choice:
XH-A1 - (No interchangable lense?)
No true 24P
I've heard the focus and zoom have a delay when used simultaneously. (I could be wrong or this could be refering to auto zoom)

I'm looking for a cinematic look, so true 24P is a plus. Is canon's alternative just as good?
I really like the versatility that the HVX200 offers and its wide range of formats. However, is it worth the extra money over the XH-A1? I've found both for around the same price (just $300 difference) so that is not a problem. The problem is that the solid state memory cards or buying a FS-100 is just as expensive as the HVX200 itself! So is it worth it, or am I better off spending that money on other externals? Again, I'll be using this for indie films and maybe an occasional music video.

And if anyone has any other camera ideas let me know. I know its a lot of questions, but i'm a college student and its a lot of money to me. Thanks!

 

[MarkG]

There's a comparative review with lots of frame captures here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/xha1/

Obviously it's on a Panasonic-based site so may be a bit biased, but it should give you a good start.

Personally I'd get the XHA1, but others like the HVX200.

 

[ralck]

Another thing to consider: 24P is not the only defining factor of the 'film look'. Another aspect is depth of field. For the cameras you listed, they have small CCD's so you will have a large depth of field. Most films use a small depth of field to be able to easily show you what to look at (and have everything else out of focus). Of course, I'm not saying this is a must (Citizen Kane was deep focus), but it's a great tool for learning about composition and to help show your audience what you want them to see.

Now, if you did want to do this, there are professional adapters out there for quite a pretty penny (I hear the RedRock Micro is the most highly rated of them). I'm currently building my own (for a cost of only 52 dollars so far as opposed to 300-1500). I'll let you know how it goes when I finish.

 

[Locke]

Thanks for the advice. I'm a big fan of shallow depth of field. However, can't you achieve shallow depth of field simply by the three basic principles of camera to subject distance, iris aperture, and lens angle? At least thats what I was taught. Definately let me know how the building on that goes. I might have to do that myself

 

[ralck]

Yes, that's how DoF can be achieved. However, stock lenses on DV cameras (which on most models, cannot be replaced with other ones) have very limiting capabilities about that. This was done on purpose because really, the CCD's, at their small sizes, can't give a very good picture without a fairly large DoF. If you wanted to get shallow DoF on a DV camera, the only ways I know of that are either an adapter on a consumer camera, or a professional camera with three 2/3" CCD's (which I'm not entirely sure how small you can get your DoF with).

What I'm trying to say is, yes you can play with the DoF on a DV camera, but not very much and certainly not as much as a 35mm camera (still or film) can do (well, unless you could afford to have specialized backgrounds that were greater than lifesize and a lot further away from your subject as well as smaller than normal foregrounds that were really close to the camera, but still this wouldn't really look quite right).

 

[Locke]

Thanks for the info. I'm not sure if my budget can afford buying an adapter for 35mm, but I really like the idea. If you're succesful with the "home-made" veresion definately let me know. I'm pretty obsessed with shallow DoF.

 

[ralck]

I'm only waiting on one more part. It should arrive within a week, so I'll be able to finish it up then and let you know (hopefully with some footage as well).

 

[BenB]

HVX200, you can't shoot to an iPod. You can shoot HD to the P2 cards, FS-100, or directly to a laptop. If you're using a Mac, for example, you can use VeeScope Live or DV Monitor/HD Monitor to shoot directly to disk with any Firewire capable camera.

 

[Locke]

Is 16:9 aspect ratio at all possible with these cameras in Standard definition? Or is it strictly limited to 4:3

 

[BenB]

When shooting HDV or DVCPRO-HD, the aspect ratio is 16:9 native. In SD modes, they will shoot 4:3 native. Some cameras allow you to do 16:9 in SD mode, too. This is often called a "Squeeze Mode". The manufactures have product info you can download from their sites that has all that info.